Boler v. Rice

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Boler v. Rice

280 A.D.2d 668, 720 N.Y.S.2d 836, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1790

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedFebruary 26, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 280 A.D.2d 668 (Boler v. Rice) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Boler v. Rice, 280 A.D.2d 668, 720 N.Y.S.2d 836, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1790 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a child custody proceed[669]*669ing pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Snellenburg, J.H.O.), entered June 10, 1999, which dismissed her petition for custody of the infant child, and granted the cross petition of the respondent for custody. The notice of appeal from a decision of the same court dated February 10, 1999, is deemed to be a premature notice of appeal from the order.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted (see, Anders v California, 386 US 738; Matter of Kamate v Kamate, 260 AD2d 637; People v Paige, 54 AD2d 631). O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Altman and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—In a child custody proceed[669]*669ing pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Snellenburg, J.H.O.), entered June 10, 1999, which dismissed her petition for custody of the infant child, and granted the cross petition of the respondent for custody. The notice of appeal from a decision of the same court dated February 10, 1999, is deemed to be a premature notice of appeal from the order.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted (see, Anders v California, 386 US 738; Matter of Kamate v Kamate, 260 AD2d 637; People v Paige, 54 AD2d 631). O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Altman and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 A.D.2d 668, 720 N.Y.S.2d 836, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1790, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boler-v-rice-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack